Skip to main content
9:30 pm
never. it will be over my dead body. how daresome people say that the wrestling with their conscience. i know exactly what i want to do. the compromise that the leader of the opposition offered today , went some way for stomper niese -- offering a solution. on the island or someone else -- i fought with the previous foreign minister. my problems, until he assured me that at all times, australians would -- be protected, that they would have health care and educational support until he
9:31 pm
could assure me that those most vulnerable would be protected. that is when i agreed with them and i was prepared to cross the floor. i disagreed with the treatment of those most vulnerable. until he assured me personally, along with the minister of immigration and no child would ever be abandoned in another country once they came under the protection of australia, until he told me that he would not support this. but he did. this government is asking us to support a situation where a 13 year old child can be sent to another nation without any regard for their welfare after
9:32 pm
that moment. and even if we have word from the immigration minister about this being a case by case basis, the enactment of this -- is the most damning thing for our conscience. that is why i feel entirely consistent, that is why i was so angry from before. i wrestle with my conscience on this debate but i am entirely consistent with my soul. i will sleep easy because i know from my own background and what i have done in the past that i will be consistent, no matter how painful it may be in the electorate, and how hard it could be to explain to my constituents. i rest easy on this because i am
9:33 pm
been consistent with what beats within my soul. >> the question is resolved in the affirmative. >> those are the highlights of the australian parliamentary sitting in june. we will see you next time. >> the british house of commons began summer recess until september 3. prime minister's questions returns september 5, at 7:00 eastern. the use of domestic drones' by local police and college and some federal agencies continues to rise and is expected there will be 300,000 in the sky by 2020. a college professor talk about hijacking the civilian drawn to show their vulnerability, and
9:34 pm
said the homeland security office should regulate this. this portion of the hearing is just under one hour. >> first, as a matter of business, i would ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the subcommittee for this hearing -- i see no objections. you have no objection to that? i now recognize myself for the opening statement. unmanned aerial systems have been a game changer for men and women serving in iraq and afghanistan. the systems give us the eyes in the sky and taken the fight to the enemy, eliminating some of the most dangerous terrorists, and increasing the capability to defend our borders.
9:35 pm
u.s. customs began looking at these in 2004. now they have 10 of these aircraft. they have surveyed bridges and levees, rivers that are about to flood and assisted with the national guard resources and local flooding. this is also supported the texas rangers and the fbi and others. this is a force multiplier for military operations and border security. but we are on the edge of a new horizon. connolly there are 200 active tickets of authorization issued by the federal aviation administration to over 100 different entities, law enforcement departments and academic institutions, to fly
9:36 pm
these drones domestically. on the monitor, we see the locations of these recipients as of april 2012. the number of recipients has increased since that time. the faa plans to select six test cities for the use of the non- government drowns this year to allow the deployment of non- government drowns by the year 2015. the faa is responsible for ensuring these systems safely, with only 2.5 short years until they dominate the skies, no federal agency has taken the lead for the full implications of these unmanned aerial systems and developing the policies and guidelines for their use. four years ago, the government
9:37 pm
accountability office recommended to the city -- the secretary -- that they examine the security implications of future, non-military operations in the national airspace systems and take any actions deemed appropriate. the recommendation was well- founded. there was an advisory about possible terrorist efforts in using these as weapons. the advisory noticed the ability to disperse chemicals or biological weapons and how the revolutionary armed forces of colombia and hezbollah were interested in acquiring these. and as the advisory said there was no credible evidence to suggest there was a plan to use the systems in the united states, it did say that the u.s. government was concerned that
9:38 pm
these vehicles could be modified and used to attack key assets and critical infrastructures in the united states. these concerns were valid did last year when a massachusetts man fled guilty to attempting to damage or destroy a federal buildings. he was arrested in september 2011 after an investigation showed that his plot use multiple romo-controlled aircraft to collapse the dome of the united states capitol, and attack the pentagon using that system. as if this was not enough, cutting edge research at of the university of texas has revealed more security vulnerability. researchers led by dr. todd humphries, who was our first witness today, shows that
9:39 pm
civilian medical -- civilian systems can be hijacked with a small investment of money and time. these findings are alarming and show a gaping hole in the security of the unmanned aerial systems. now is the time to ensure these vulnerabilities are mitigated to protect the aviation system -- the department's mission is to protect the homeland. they are uninterested or unprepared to step up to the plate to address the proliferation of the unmanned aerial systems in u.s. airspace. the potential threat for our national security and the concerns that our citizens have of how the drones fly over cities will be used, including protecting civil liberties under the constitution.
9:40 pm
in discussions with by subcommittee -- with the subcommittee staff, they said the department does not see this function, as part of their mission with no part of the unmanned aerial systems. i cannot imagine how they would find that there is no role when there is a terror plot afforded by the fbi to attempt to hit the united states capitol and the pentagon. what more homeland security interest could there be? this is truly incomprehensible. it should not take an attack in the style of 9/11 -- or a lone wolf of vent to cause them to address the security implications of domestic drones. it should not take a hearing to force them to develop policies
9:41 pm
when it comes to the security of the homeland. it should take responsible leadership willing to recognize this threat. i am concerned that they are reverting back to a mind set before 9/11 -- which was a lack of imagination in identifying threats and protecting the homeland. we are disappointed that they did not testify today. this is an example of how the leadership this failing to get ahead of the curb on an issue which directly impacts the security of the united states. i hope the witness' testimony will be a call for action and during today's testimony, we look forward to learning more about the security issues related to the domestic use of drones and what the -- what they need to do to prepare for the widespread use. the chair will recognize the
9:42 pm
ranking member -- >> thank you for this opportunity to be here with you. the ranking member -- where we deal with border security and some of the issues that we have worked on together, gives us the opportunity. and the co-chair -- for the members -- we do have tomorrow, a conference meeting and we will have representatives from the fbi, tomorrow at 10:00, and i will give a copy to the members here. this is an excellent opportunity for members and their staff to learn about the future domestic law enforcement use.
9:43 pm
we have spent a lot of time with other members of the caucus, looking at the issues that you brought up. privacy issues that have been brought up, and many of them have been decided by the supreme court. we are looking at a different type of platform, if this is a helicopter or an airplane. many of these issues have been addressed. there are one or two pages that i have, and if anybody wants to learn about the privacy issues on the drones, please contact my office, but the other thing -- you bring up a lot of good points that we need to cover. hearing from the graduate, also. i have the pleasure of meeting you and i have a few questions for you.
9:44 pm
this type of dialogue will be good to talk about. one last thing, we did pass the read-authorization that talks about the integration and there are different steps that we have brought in. i would ask you to spend some time with them, because they have certain steps they will be going into with the future use on this. i of the ranking member for the subcommittee is on his way and he does have a statement. he will be here and if you give him the opportunity to also make that statement when he shows up. thank you for allowing me to be here with you. >> before we continue i ask consent to have a statement for the president and ceo for the bonnett -- unmanned vehicle
9:45 pm
systems, and the president of the air line pilots association describing the domestic use -- and they are in favor of this hearing. hearing no objection, so ordered. the chair will go to the panel. and introduce -- dr. humphries, and i had the pleasure to visit him yesterday and i take pride that you are here, today. growing up in a family of longhorns, i take pride in that as well. dr. humphries -- he is at the university of texas in austin, with problems in sedar route -- satellite navigation. and signal processing. for anyone here who understands the other than him,
9:46 pm
congratulations to you. he directs the radio navigation laboratory where he is currently researching in defending against jamming -- dr. humphries uncovered the gps signals that navigate the unmanned aerial systems that can be hijacked and controlled. there was the white sand range with the department of homeland security, and dr. humphries, at memorial stadium -- we will see a video that describes this. he obtained a doctorate from cornell university. we recognize him for his opening statement. >> members of the subcommittee, he may have heard these reports, that this time last month, my students and i
9:47 pm
hijacked a civilian aerial vehicle, a small helicopter, and brought down from a remote location. this is true and i am prepared to talk about what we did and what the implications are for the natural air space and how we can address the problem of this experiment. how did we do this? we exploited the weakness in the global positioning system. the signals come in two flavors, one that is unscripted, to prevent unauthorized use, and now there is the civilian signal, and these are not encrypted. this explains the enormous popularity and their usefulness, but it opens of vulnerability that makes them easy to counterfeit.
9:48 pm
just like monopoly money they have the detailed structure but no protection against counterfeiting. so what does this have to do with uav's? all of these depend on the gps for their navigation. this means if you can convincingly fake the signal, you can fool the centre tracking your system instead of the authentic one, and at that time you can control this and make it move left or right, front or back, up or down, and you hijack this. you can do this from miles away. my friends at the university of texas have prepared a video i would like to show you, that illustrates what we did and helps me to explain the technique that is involved. against the background, this
9:49 pm
animated one, flying above the desert floor, this person is the good guy, the remote operator who is uploading the way. , this is the destination that this is supposed to move to. he helped locate itself, and as you can see here he recognizes with the destination is, and makes the tracks towards the destination. but the bad guy, moving in here, he is a spoof for operator, and he will transmit the fake signals. at this time we will pause so i can talk about what you see on the screen. this exists in every gps receiver, corresponding to the authentic signals. you can cause this to appear,
9:50 pm
this lines up with the authentic one, and what you notice is that as it draws off, this is where they think that this says. this is not the actual location. this is the ghost that lines up instead of the actual -- and we did the same thing here at memorial stadium, thinking that this would be rising up and you can see here, in response it falls down. the ball at the bottom shows you who is in control. the ground controller -- when they go read, this is the stouffer. you can see that this drops towards the ground.
9:51 pm
this is all under control of this remote hijacker. we were invited by the department of homeland security or authorized and we facilitated some of this test so that we could do this in the air. we broadcast our signals, and you can roll this. in this case, it started in hovering position but then came straight down, as if this was an elevator under control of the remote hacker. what are the implications for the national airspace? congress handed a mandate to the federal ed -- federal aviation administration to accelerate the use of this into the space system and the should
9:52 pm
factor heavily into that. the truth is that the culture and the expertise is toward -- is geared to safety. i think it is fair to say that they may have a role to play in drawing up these new rules and regulations. i am happy to entertain questions from the committee. >> thank you. i think they canceled the football practice to do that. >> they moved the football practice -- >> this is a big deal in the state of texas. your last comment -- this is astounding. that you can hijack this and bring it down. this is an eye opener. let me also say that these are
9:53 pm
encrypted and this cannot be done to the military vehicle like the one used on the board, but anything used domestically has the vulnerabilities that we are concerned about. i will ask you about this later. the main concern is security of the airways and safety. the safety of the airways. they will that make the flight pattern and make sure that there are no other airplanes that would interfere with the flight pattern. but the focus is not security. there is no federal agency that is providing oversight in terms of the security aspect. >> i believe that they have a role to play in that. and that the faa could play a role, too. but the culture and the expertise are not designed for that. >> the government
9:54 pm
accountability office agreed with you. they directed the secretary of homeland security to this to basically provide for that security. assess the security less -- within the company -- country and change national policy. you have company in terms of agreement. i find this to be a bit of -- nobody is minding the store. no federal agency will step up to the plate. when they say the department of homeland security needs to do this, i tend to agree with them. but they failed to bring witnesses to testify on this important issue, when, in the nine states capital, someone was using one of these -- but getting back to the -- let me ask you this.
9:55 pm
you identified a real vulnerability -- but tell me what would be your nightmare scenario in demonstrating what you were able to do, if a terrorist or some other malicious person learned to exploit the system? >> i should say i am not a word about this. this was 13 pounds and it could hurt you if it landed on you, i am not terribly worried at present. my nightmare scenario is looking forward three or four years where we have adopted these international airspace without addressing this problem. and now we have this being more capable and this vulnerability is not addressed. this is my nightmare scenario.
9:56 pm
we do not fix this and this is a more indigenous problem. >> in the next few years, we will have thousands flying around, domestically. there is no federal agency really addressing the security aspect. >> we have the prediction that there could be 30,000 of these in the air space. this does concern me. we would take ownership of the security components coming into the national airspace. >> you have done the country a great service by ratifying the vulnerability. we talked about cyber security, and acting to the internet. if you are connected to a gps device you are vulnerable. can you explain that in the lamented enough time i have left? >> this is just one expression
9:57 pm
of a larger problem of authenticated gps signals. over the last two decades, we have let this technology into the infrastructure so that manned aircraft has some vulnerability to spoofing, with the energy distribution system that is increasingly reliant on gps for the timing. this is a larger problem, and it all gets traced back to be authenticated civilian systems. >> i see that our time is about to expire. let me thank you for coming up here to testify in washington, performing a great service to the country. not only technology wise, but also from the bureaucratic standpoint. i intend for this committee to fix this problem.
9:58 pm
>> i appreciate the work that you have done. the specific efforts were successful again, and the encrypted gps systems -- >> it is important to remember this. >> this is civilian? and i noticed that my understanding is that there are different purposes, the law enforcement, universities, research purposes and all of that, and so for the civilian purposes, most of these are going to be small, but 11 pounds, small helicopters. these are used for specific instances, and this is usually the line of sight.
9:59 pm
>> that is how we currently operate. >> this would be their most of the time, 11 pounds or whenever the case may be. >> it helps to put things in perspective. >> the other thing, since this focuses on the gps signals, it goes beyond the unmanned aircraft. anything from cell phones to aircraft -- you could have the impact on anything dealing with gps for navigation. this could be other technologies. >> now, i think in a recent interview, he said the closest thing we had to a foolproof way to prevent this -- i think this
10:00 pm
is part of the air force that alters the civilian directorate. can you explain how this would be done without an impact for the system devices that depend on the gps? >> i said that is the closest thing to foolproof, but it would take a long time to be rolled out and implemented. i am not holding my breath for a change in the signals being broadcast by the gps satellite. i would like to have it happen. it would be a solution for everybody worldwide that uses the civil gps signals. at least it would solve the problems to some degree. we can make it backward compatible, so that if you pay attention, it is like a watermark in a $20 bill. you can see the water mark. if you do not pay attention, you are not bothered by its
10:01 pm
presence. the same thing happens by adding authentication signatures to civilian gps. >> the bottom line is spoofing gps signals, which means navigation -- >> you can think of this as one expression of the larger problem. >> most of the civilian purposes are going to be small. i think there have been types of uab's -- many helicopters will be within a specific size, for that specific purpose. law enforcement, scientific, whatever the case may be. >> that is right. i anticipate it will always be very specific when these get authorization. i am not sure how this will look, 10 or 20 years from now, whether you will have highways in the sky, like you see in the
10:02 pm
movies. as far as your comments, one of my recommendations in the written testimony is that those exceeding a certain amount in weight be required to have a spoof-resistant navigation system. but we would not want to encumber the smaller vehicles, which are less of a danger and more sensitive to price, with that sort of requirement. there is a balance to be struck. we can debate about the 18 or 16 pounds. as they get above 18 pounds, they become quite deadly. >> the bottom line is, i really appreciate it. any time we go into a new technology, basically, the technology is a different platform. you have cameras are sensors, whatever it might be, whether it is a helicopter or airplane. i really appreciate what you are doing. i will be looking at your
10:03 pm
recommendations. i think it is a lot of good work that you and your students did. it is a great job will take in consideration. i thank you for your good work. >> i think the ranking member. i did not have a chance to ask you about your recommendations for safety and security. i ask that you submit that for the record. that would be excellent. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> i want to thank dr. humphries for being here. this is very educational. thinking through, as we watch the video, thinking through what happened in 2011, with the iranians claiming to have hijacked a military uav, i know that was a unencrypted signal. but do think they were able to use a similar technology of spoofing to help bring it down?
10:04 pm
>> i think it is important to take whatever they say with a few doses of salt. in this case, there claims could have merit. they could have initiated a sequence of events that led to capture. that means we have a lot of explaining to do. >> that type of electronic bearish -- barrage, is that possible in civilian aerospace to capture a law enforcement uav? >> similar techniques could be used. they typically have two important wireless signals.
10:05 pm
of course, the gps signal hopes it to navigate. mostly, they do well if you cut colony -- is to cut one of those two, but not if you cut both. i am broadly concerned about an electronic attack, and about spoofing. >> in not only change the youth -- the gps symbol, but you tapped into command and control? >> we did not attempt that. but it could be done as a jamming attack. you could cut that cord and prevent the remote operator from controlling the uav. >> you were able to change the gps signal to fool the plane? >> yes. and the remote operator was in
10:06 pm
contact the entire time. it was just that nothing appeared wrong to his sensors in the current configuration that we attacked. >> it could have flown it to another runway and captured it? >> ultimately, yes. it is not terribly easy to control it, once you have it. it is like a black stallion. you can jump on its back. can you ride it? the question we have asked is what could be done after you captured it, other than just moving it down are doing broad strokes. >> if the drone is used for surveillance purposes and has a real-time video feed, could that feed the hack into, or the replacement feed it sent to fool the operator? i am thinking of mission impossible. the operator is seeing something completely different. is that the possibility? >> ar sneak up and put a polaroid picture in front of the
10:07 pm
video feed. it turns up these are areas of research, in our laboratory and elsewhere. the truth is that those kinds of data feeds can take a vintage of the existing encryption utilities, which are very difficult to fete -- to crack. if precautions have been put in place and those are unencrypted, it is not so easy. the attack we were successful in was going after the authenticated civil gps signal. nobody has bothered to protect that signal, and so that was the weakest link. >> you think most governmental agencies are using encrypted signals capability? >> only very few civil government agencies in the united states are using the encrypted military signal. almost all of them depend on these civilian signals. i had two of the lieutenants of the austin police department in my office on tuesday. they were asking me for guidance
10:08 pm
on what i would do with their newly purchased uav. what i recommend the use it during game day, to monitor for suspicious activities around the football stadium? would i recommend the use it for swat activities, perhaps hostage situations? i gave them my recommendations. if you have risk on the ground already, i would get those eyes in the sky. but if there is not ongoing, risky activity on the ground, i would probably think it -- keep it down. >> could criminal activities use this technology to thwart law enforcement activity? >> the spoofing technology? >> the gps technology the students have come up with. >> i want to make a point that this is not easy. this has taken us years to build and perfect. the trouble is that civilian malefactors or others can get hold of what are called signals
10:09 pm
simulators. they can do almost everything we did. these are readily available. you can purchase them. i am worried that it could be a weapon in its arsenal of organized crime or state actors, or organized terrorists. >> thank you. my time is up. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> the thought of having two texas representatives here prompted me to get here with great alacrity. i want to thank you for your fine performance. i am asking for consent that my statement go on the record, so we can move expeditiously to questions. i have a question for dr. humphries. when you are comparing civilian reverses law enforcement, and the different codes of
10:10 pm
encryption, what is the cost differential? law enforcement wants more encryption. is the cost prohibitive? would there be a better track to take to differentiate it, so there is more the encryption are safety than spoofing? spoofing? >> perhaps if there's recmendations the uav usi has recommended, they would like to use saddam receivers, gps receivers for military uses into the civilian uavs that they can protected from hacking attacks. the trouble i see what that is twofold. one coming as the price goes up because there's only a couple companies that can build these receivers and so the price would much more than doubled. and that is gng to hurt this nation industry, which is sensitive to price, especially for smaller devices. and second, i do feel of the
10:11 pm
logistics working out. these are hot ite. you would not want than proliferating among civilis and end upin the wrong hands. and you wouldn't necessarily want to distribute the keys on a short-tm basis because that is cumbersome for the owners. ..
10:12 pm
>> these planes are large. they have good initial sensors. they have two pilots. there are reductions in play. they depend heavily on gps. they deal fairly well with an outage of gps. a jamming attack, for example, or some other reason it goes away. i do not think the testing has been adequate for understanding how to deal with a spoofing attack. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the chair now recognizes -- it >> thank you very much. i think our ranking member for filling in. dr. humphrey, i find the whole topic as fascinating.
10:13 pm
i serve on infrastructure protection. this is quite fascinating. one of the questions i have, and i've had this quite froactly as -- frequently as we advance our technology logical know how whether it pays in outset to bake into our technology ways in which we can counter act disruption or if need be, disarm and disable the vices that are developed. and it would seem to me, no knowing what we know that the next generation would be sensitive enough that if any spoofing activity were to take place, something could be banked into the twos that would protect
10:14 pm
us. what do you say about that? >> i agree with that. i would recommendly whole heartly efforts to bake into antispoofing techniques. problem would be -- without taking the issue seriously enough. we have a great number in our air space which continue to be just as the one we took down. there are techniques, simple tech vehicles that while not foul proof, they can increase the resistance to a spoofing attack significantly. i recommend in my written testimony a long list of these techniques. some simple some not. antispoofing is hard. there's no question and easy and cheap slowings. there are reasonable cos effective measures we take in the short term to bake it in, as you say. >> you also stated in your view of te problem, should be solved
10:15 pm
as the sourced at the gps satellite themselves. do you believe that this is likely to occur? >> so i did say that on an interview. i guess i despair at the kinds of institutional changes that would be required looking for funding or political will to bring that about in the very best scenario, it might take five years before we see any protection. m becoming more pessimistic we can solve this problem at the gps saturday light i suppose had there are more grassroots approach withthe uav within he navigation system is more reasonable and practical. >> you recommended that dhs submit to funding development and implementation of a authentication signature in the forthcoming sinals.
10:16 pm
how did the hs respond to the recommendation and do you think the agency will make will the suggested changes? >> so this is a long-term recommendation. as i said, i'm not saying it's going happen tomorrow or within five years. long-term. i would like the dhs to commit to funding this. the department of defense has indicated some willingness to implement a change to the cvil gps signal so they can be awe authenticated like putting a water mark on the $20 bill hey don't have the funds. i believe it would fall to the dhs to fund something like this. >> in just listening to what you have had to say look at the rate of which the uavs are being produced. if yore estimate it make take about five years to get there, we could be talking about, you
10:17 pm
know, tens o thousand of uavs at that point in time, having been deployed at some level whether it's military, whether it's local law enforcement. so, you know, i want to thank you first of all for the work that you've done, the research and the capabilities that you have uncovered. but my concern is you know what you suggest we do right now. >> the suggestion i have right now are these grassroots approaches for fixing the uav without having permission of the department of the gps director at the air force. there are reasonable techniques you bake the gps sever receivers and the entire navigation system while they don't prevent sophisticated attacks, they would sure make them harder. >> thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i tha you yes lady. you raise a point.
10:18 pm
-- i hope we can fix these. i ask you put the intreemtion the record. chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i must confess, i am fascinated by this. i was sitting here thinking that we may have all of these things in the environment singing all around every place when you watch when you used to be science fiction. i'm not sure this is much fiction now as it use to be. but i was trying to figure out the utilizationization and utility, what's the usefulness of the continuous development of the technology? >> it's a great question. there are in fact, a lot of great uses to which these drones can beput.
10:19 pm
i want to use them in the research so we can do better detection of interference sources in the gps radio ban. i'll confess also. i'm looking forward to a day when i get a taco delivered to my doorstep from done that days takeout deliver i are. other types can be in monitor border helping to surveil difficult situations like a swat attack against somebody who is got as hostile situation ongoing. i see these as being very useful. i would not want to put the brakes on the plan faa has to roll tm out in the fure. i would simply want to hold the faa to the language of the act passed back in february so we is safely accelerate the adoption of these uav into the national
10:20 pm
air space. >> i guess since we have a great concern about terrorism, terrorist, terrorist plots, that it would give us the opportunity to stay a step ahead of individuals our countries, even, that might have other kinds of motivation for further development. >> that's true. if you put the brakes on the industry now, you end up putting at a disadvantage compared to other countries. the uav revolution is coming, and we might as well be on the cutting edge of it. how do we balance -- i'm thinking of all of the concerns that we have right now about money and expenditus, and, you know, when we cut $25 billion out this, we deny people food
10:21 pm
stamps or, you know, i think people having so much difficulty simply having shelt are or a place to live, how do we balance the utilizationization of our resources resources in terms what it would take to further develop the technology we're talking about versus how do you feed the hungry or? >> well, it's a good question. i guess i would point out in many cases the uav would save money. austin police department the lieutenants talking to me they were telling it cost $5 million to buy a helicopter for man use and only maybe $50,000 on uav. they're on a tight budget. i understand where they are locking at them to save money. it would frees up budgets for other worthy uses for the
10:22 pm
funds. it's going to be a dynamo for innovation and jobs a healthy domestic uav industry. my main contention is let's let it go ahead but let's be vigilant to the uses they are put and nsure the peoples' privacy and security is a top priority. >> well, let me thank you very much. i certainly support technology enforcement. i want to as balanced as we can. i commend you for your work. thank you very much. >> thank the gentleman. the chair now indulges the gentleman in texas for one question. >> one question. doctor, just real quickly. i appreciate the good work you have done. there are first of all the military type of drones uav and there is the hobby uav and the
10:23 pm
commercial uav would you say that? >> i think those are good broad classification yes. >> what you use is . >> personally it was an $80,000. >> was it a hobby? >> no. >> it wasn't? >> okay a hobbyist could use it, of course. it was a quite expensive for the average weekend hobbyiest. >> right. my u understanding is that most of the hobby uav do not have protection over radio signals and they can be easily taken over whether it's oiled ,000 or $5,000. my understanding is most commercial uav have encription the frequent frequency on hackg or spoofing would be difficult. >> the communication from the remote pilot might well be secure. it but the spoofing of the ps signals is not secure. and that's what we demonstrated. we were use the high end
10:24 pm
sophisticad uav. we were not using the do it yourself drone. >> my understanding is most of the commercial uav have the encription on it. and having it is very important because just like a member of the fbi person they were selling the encription keys and there was sort of thing involved on that. wanted to -- appreciate the work. i wanted to make sure . >> they may have encription on the command and control link. they don't have encription on the gps navigation lang. >> those are the recommendation. >> i recommend we ensure uav exceeding 18 pounds have certified themselves as spoof resistance. i give a brief definition many any statement. i'm willing to entertain that definition in further research. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman. let me reintegrate. that is we worked together very
10:25 pm
closely on getting these uav military dhs con on the border southwest border where they are needed and vey valuable in securing the border. what we're talking about here today is the domestic use of uav which are not encrypted and vulnerable. there's no policy set forth in tes how we do del with them the next couple of years are going to multiply the flownd. thousand. it's incumbent upon the department of homeland security in particular of the trotion plot to engage on the issue and come provide that security and policy. with that. i want to thank our witness dr. hum humphreys. it's been a pleasure to hear your intelligent testimony, but on a personal level to met you as well. thank you for being sheer.
10:26 pm
>> tomorrow on washington journal, the committee for a responsible budget releases a debt reduction and budget. we will talk with the group president, my mcinnis. -- maya macguineas. then, will talk about aerospace budget cuts. then, in response to large wildfires. tomtit well will talk about how the agencies coordinate, and where the money is spent. washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern, on c-span. >> a first term the u.s. representative spoke in washington, d.c.. she spoke about her history as an anti-abortion activist, and her 2010 congressional campaign. this is a half-hour.
10:27 pm
>> all right. i am told the congresswoman is here. she is here. our next speaker, the congresswoman, graduated in 1972 as a nurse, and then graduated from syracuse university college of law. that is a good combination. she worked in a private law firm, and served as assistant state attorney general for a number of years. please welcome u.s. congresswoman anne-marie per call -- buerkle.
10:28 pm
>> i must say that following allen west and michele bachman is no easy feat, so bear with me. i should also comment that i had a root canal yesterday. if i am slurring my words, my speech has nothing to do with anything but my tooth. i am so pleased with all of you, because you are the future of this country. having young people involved in politics and paying attention to the issues that face our nation is so critical, that we keep this nation that we have, and it continues on a path consistent with the united states of america. i just want to give you a little bit of history. as was mentioned, i went to nursing school in 1969. i know that seems like ancient history to all of you.
10:29 pm
i was raised in a small town in upstate new york called auburn. when they graduate from high school in 1969, i was told, "here are your options." one of them was going to the convent. one was to become a secretary corners. those were the options available to women back then. nobody said to you you could be a member of congress. they did not think in those terms. i went to nursing school and graduated in 1972. i had my first son in 1976. i went back to get my bachelor's of science degree. i was pregnant with my second child at that point. i needed to write a paper or do a presentation, so i said, i am going to do a presentation, because that is easier than doing research with a young baby. i got involved. i did my first presentation on
10:30 pm
the pro-life movement. in new york state, abortionabor. it was particularly meaningful to me. i was pregnant at the time. i just completed nursing school two years ago. i understood that when a woman was admitted to the hospital, there would two patients. i understood that parents have rights. i understood that patients had rights. the whole issue, in the face of health care, it did not make sense to me. i did the presentation. i spent the next several years involved in the right-to-life movement. i spoke out about education. i felt that women before they make that choice should understand what the situation is about the pregnancy and the possible complications they can have as a result of an abortion. we did well.
10:31 pm
we looked to others. i just want to tell you what a privilege it is to be here this morning. she blazed the trail. she stood up, back in a time when people were doing -- today we have a lot of conservative organizations. we have a lot of movement. we have people who understand the nation is not on the right track. you are looking at it true hero -- at a true hero. someone who stood up and made a difference and continues to make a difference. i would like you to all recognize phyllis for her contribution to the united states of america.
10:32 pm
[applause] i ran for congress in 2010. i left my job as an attorney general. i did not like the course the nation was on. i felt that so many of the things that had been voted on, the stimulus package, cap and trade, was not with the united states was supposed to look like. i threw my hat in the ring. the new york times give me a 10% chance of winning my race. we were the underdog. when you have the conversation and you say, i want to run for congress, i want to do something, they roll their eyes at you. i want to talk to you this morning about that and about understanding what you are capable of. how important it is that if you want to do something, and you
10:33 pm
are compelled to do something, that you understand that your abilities are inside of you. if the think about what the declaration of independence tells all of us, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. our rights emanate from our creator, not from our federal government. that knowledge should empower you to understand what you are capable of achieving. when you sit there in the audience today, i do not know how many of you are thinking of running for politics. i do not know how many of you have been involved in a campaign. how important it is to recognize what you are capable of doing and if you are willing, it is the essence of the united states of america that if you have a dream and a goal and you are willing to work hard, that you can achieve and be and do whatever it is you want to do.
10:34 pm
i implore you, if you do not remember anything else, that you understand what you are capable of. do not let anyone ever tell you that you cannot do it. the odds are against you. you do not have the money. i ended up being the largest upset in the country. we were outspent five to one. our race was not decided until three weeks after election day. we won by 648 votes. it really was a testament to, it is the message, not the money. it is the message. there are people in this nation, you heard from michele bachmann. they are the leaders in this movement. there are people who are fighting for the preservation of the netted states of america. who understand that we are at a crossroads this year in 2010 and in 2012.
10:35 pm
you sitting here and being willing to be involved is so critical. i also want to talk to you about why i ran for congress. i mentioned about our country being on the wrong side. my grandparents came here from italy. my parents were first-generation americans. i want you to think about the people who came to this country and why they came to this country. they did not have cell phones. they did not have credit cards. my grandparents never spoke english. they came over here on a boat. they only spoke italian. they got to this country. the reason they came is that they knew that this nation offers an opportunity that no other nation offers. this experiment in liberty offers individuals the opportunity to be or do anything
10:36 pm
they want to be. that is the united states of america. that is why i ran for congress. that is why you are sitting here today. you understand how important is that we all work together. it is a difficult road we had a head of us. we have to change hearts and minds. we have to make the moral argument for freedom. when you think about the declaration of independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, john lock wanted it to be property. thomas jefferson said, no. we are a moral country. we are not materialistic. back in the early days, they made the moral argument for the united states of america. that is what we are fighting for
10:37 pm
today. i must say that republicans and conservatives do not do a good job. we talked about numbers. we talk about budget. people eyes glaze over. what we need to be talking about is what this nation offers every person who lives here. what opportunities it offers them because of the freedom we have. that will be my second team i am going to ask you to remember, this nation is great, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, because of the freedom it offers. because of the opportunity. it is why so many of your ancestors came here. we came here for religious freedom, opportunity, freedom from oppression and government. we are living in a time when the government believes they are the
10:38 pm
ones to grant us their rights. the whole spectrum of the united states of america has been turned around. we have a government that thinks their role is to give us our rights. i will talk about the health care law. 2700 pages, a document that is trying to be deciphered. there are probably 12,000 pages of regulations. that is not what the role of government is. yes, we need health care reform. the government has gotten so far off the path that it is up to all of you, me, michele bachmann, to turn this around. to make sure that we get back to what our founding fathers had in mind. that is freedom and liberty. that is the right to be or do whatever it is you want to do. the other thing i wanted to remember, -- i want you to
10:39 pm
remember, to all of you who live here in the united states, be grateful you are a citizen. never take for granted the freedom this nation offers you, the opportunity that exists here. when you see a member of the military, say thank you. yesterday morning, i had a meeting with wounded warriors. i have the privilege of being on the veterans' affairs committee. i have seen up close and personal the sacrifice the men and women make for this nation. the technology of war has changed. they can survive so many things they could not survive in vietnam. the posttraumatic stress disorder that these young men and women will live with for the rest of their lives. i implore you, and when you see
10:40 pm
someone, you say thank you to them and your family. we are the greatest nation in the history of the world. it is because of the surface and sacrifice of the men and women in harm's way. to fight for, not health care, not kept and trade, to fight for the freedom that was outlined in our constitution and declaration of independence. i am delighted to be here with you. i would like to open it up to questions. [applause] >> raise your hand and we will rush the mic over to you. >> it is a very intimidating prospect to think we need to turn this entire nation around. what advice can you give to us for continuing to inspire so we can make that fight. ?
10:41 pm
what action can we be taking to be that change? >> the first thing i would say it is to go back to the founding documents. understand that the constitution and the declaration of independence, they are our guiding light. here is what we know. this is what a thought when i made the decision to run for congress. if we do not make the effort, we lose. we lose this country and everything we believe in. we lose the miracle of the united states of america. that should motivate you. how successful you will be? that is anyone's guess. we have to try. we have to do what ronald reagan did. ronald reagan -- you should hold him up as your encouragement. he took this country at a low point. he turned it around. he turned it around because he knew that the greatness of this
10:42 pm
nation was with all of you. with the individual. the greatness has nothing to do with the mess in washington. the government is nothing without the american taxpayer paying its way. have faith in the american people. i am encouraged every time i am out. if i read my local newspaper, i think, oh my gosh, it can be so discouraging. then i go out for the fourth of july. there are people after people after people, they love this country. they want this country to get back to the principles that made it great. i would say, be wary of the media. i think they tell a very one- sided story. you can be discouraged. if you look at the american people, they want this nation to be great. they want us to embrace the exceptional some of this country. of thistional ism
10:43 pm
country. if we do not work, if we do not try, we will lose. with regards to have to do it, what you are doing. you are getting involved. you are paying attention. there are so many opportunities to get involved, a local election, in national election. there are so many organizations that will help. this is the first step, paying attention and increasing your quality -- and in praising your qualities as leaders. you can help, a end -- embracing your qualities as leaders. you can help. i would say, pray about it. i said, you have to tell me. you have to open the doors. he did. he opens the doors. have faith and pay for guidance. -- have faith and prayed for
10:44 pm
guidan for guidance. >> and thank you for coming. you mentioned abortion. it seems to me that most of the progress that is being made in abortion is happening on the grass-roots level. what are you doing and what do you think can be done to make progress? >> thank you for your question. we have continued to take votes in congress to preserve life. most americans, whether or not they are for or against abortion, does not believe the federal government should be paying for abortion. that is an area we have fought hard. a lot of the abortion issue is about education. the technology, roe versus wade is an old decision. i sat next to a lady who told me
10:45 pm
she had triplets and they were 1.5 pounds. 25 years ago, they could not have survived. the technology has gone far ahead of the decision. in congress, we are very aware. when you have one house, you are stymied. we can pass all kinds of legislation in the house. if we cannot get the senate to act, it holds up. education, exposing the issue for what it is. the inconsistencies with abortion. if a child wants to have an aspirin, the teacher cannot do that. if they want to get escorted to a clinic, for an abortion, they can have that. it does not even make sense that you would have a minor ago that procedure. it has nothing to do with pro- life or pro-choice. have we gone mad?
10:46 pm
exposing the inconsistencies, staying informed. understanding -- i will give this quick story. i, as i mentioned, i started out in a small town. i went on to have six children. i am the first woman to ever sit in this seat in the house of repairs and the spit it has always been held by a male. -- house of representatives. it has always been held by a male. i am the dream. i have gone through ceilings. they are picketing my office. you begin to understand what the issue is. it is not about women's rights. it is about making sure that anyone can have an abortion at any time. >> i would like to add to that.
10:47 pm
there is some good legislations that is taking place in the state legislature. the state legislature is passing a number of very good laws, such as the law that says he cannot perform an abortion unless you have hospital privileges within 30 miles. this has done a lot of good. there are other things like, informed consent. making them show the ultrasound. there are good things taking place in the legislative area. over here. >> thank you very much rep. my name is patrick o'neill. i am a graduate. my question is, the think it would be wise for the republican party -- we focus on the economy as the number one issue. do you think it would be wise to add to that, the idea of a
10:48 pm
constitutionally limited government. can we have these two goals simultaneously? should we focus on one over the other? >> i think you cannot have one discussion without the other. as we adhere to our constitution, we understand what the role of government should be. i think it has to be simultaneous. what i mentioned earlier, it is a complicated argument when we talk about debt and the debt this nation has. what does that do? it decreases the chance at the american dream. it decreases opportunity. it makes this nation dependent on other nations. it all ties in together. we are so concerned with the
10:49 pm
department of defense and sequestration and not giving our military the resources it needs so we can be in control and be a leader in the free world. it all ties together. at the end of the day, the argument we make is, we have to go back to the constitution. the pocket-sized constitution is 40 pages. think of the health-care law, at 2700 pages. it is the constitution we should look to for guidance and understanding. >> how about a question from this end of the room. >> you said you are elected in 2010. as a new member of congress, and what we first impressions? >> -- congress, what were your first impressions?
10:50 pm
>> we can down with a sense of the urgency that we need to change some things. the problem is we do not have complete control of the senate. we can only do so much in the house. what we ran into as freshmen were the establishment republicans. when i come down here i think, we have to make changes. we have to get rid of these regulations. we come down here, it is a very different culture. it is a status quo culture. we have worked very hard with leadership. leadership has been receptive. there has to be a sense of urgency. that was something i did not respect. -- expect. the other piece of this, i sit on the oversight, the other part was these agencies come in for the hearings, whether it is department of energy or labor,
10:51 pm
have detached they are -- how detached they are. you have someone from the department of labour who has never run a business. who does not understand bottom lines. who does not worry about payroll. you see there is a huge gap between what is going on and the regulatory agencies. you see why the nation is in trouble. they did not see the connection between how the regulations hurt our businesses and our economy. that disconnect is another thing that i was surprised about. when you look at the results, you look at where we are at, you understand how it happened and why. hhs is another body that is out of touch with the nation. we are all concerned about it. it will limit the right to
10:52 pm
practice religion in this country. it will eliminate conflicts for those in the health-care profession or for employers who do not want to provide certain services. that is something we are all concerned with. it is not a catholic issue. it is the most fundamental issue. it is the freedom of religion issue. it is important we understand that issue and how significant it is. >> yes, sir. >> i am from iowa. you were mentioning the importance of running for public office. i have interest in running for 2014. i am sure others are contemplating running. do you have any advice for people as young as myself?
10:53 pm
>> i think there is nothing about age. sometimes new ideas are better than someone who has been around a long time. i think you need to go in and study it and know what the issues are. he might want to spend time in the office of someone who is in office, due in internship. -- do an inmternshiternship. you can do or be anything you want. age is a factor. if you are interested in doing that, my advice would be start talking to people. talk to -- be involved in your town, your local party. whatever party you are affiliated with, get involved with the committee process. begin to understand how things
10:54 pm
work in the structure. look to the office you are interested in. figure out how that works. nell is the time. i would encourage all of you to get involved. >> good morning. what advice do you have for conservative women who are thinking about going into politics? what obstacles have defaced as a conservative woman? >> the -- have you faced as a conservative woman? >> the biggest obstacles i have faced, it is very interesting, have been from other women. who do not agree with me. [laughter] >> maybe that is because he lived in new york. -- you live in new york. [laughter]
10:55 pm
>> that is a great point. i look at my colleagues, you say, my heavens. i'm the most conservative member in the new york delegation. but, women are funny. i do not think we do a good job encouraging each other sometimes. i have started to form -- what is surprising to me, i think this is the most iortant part, women have been intimidated. they have been intimidated from the lead out media or fringe. they think that nobody else thinks t thinkshe loud media or fringe. -- the loud media or fringe. they think that nobody else thinks like them. we have to say -- tomorrow night i am going to be speaking. there is a large women's blog.
10:56 pm
i am speaking at their convention. there are a lot of people who say women, if we do not have this paradigm, we have the right to be heard. we have the right to be leaders. we need to encourage and empower eachother. it is not just about abortion or women's rights. it is about the united states of america. women make the most health care decisions in their family. most of them are responsible for the finances. it should not be a gender issue. it is an american issue. getting this country back on course. making sure this country gets back to its founding principles. that is so we can all prosper. i think that should be the goal. we want every person in this country, regardless of their origins, regardless of who their
10:57 pm
parents were, if it would drug addicts or in prison, we want everyone -- that should be the goal of government and society. we want to lift everybody up and help them reach their maximum potential. i would include women in that group. i think women, there are an awful lot to think and feel like we do. they have been intimidated by the media. the media would make you think that most women are pro-abortion people. they are moms. they are busy raising their families. a lot of them feel the way we do. we just need to get to them and it empowers them -- and empower them. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. [applause]
10:58 pm
all right. we appreciate your courage. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> watch book tv and american history tv august 4 and fifth as we explore the heritage and culture of louisville, kentucky. home of the oldest independent bookstore. >> a lot of the stores are stores that were opened by people who were interested in having a business. not that they had an attachment to books or a love of books. they were a business people. i think you have to have an attachment to books to care enough about them. your customers are like that. they come because they care
10:59 pm
about both. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in louisville. >> once we had it, we will install it in your car, your car can see. once your car can see come help you avoid accidents with cars, pedestrians, it can see traffic signs for you. >> collision prevention, webster in dozens of channels, smartphones -- web streaming thousands of channels, smartphones, the latest from a technology forum. communicators" on c-span-2. >> next, "q&a" with senior military correspondents david wood. follow by remarks from president obama by remarks from president obama

Road to the White House
CSPAN July 22, 2012 9:30pm-11:00pm EDT

Series/Special. (2012) Campaign rallies and other events related to the 2012 presidential race.

TOPIC FREQUENCY United States 12, America 9, Dr. Humphries 6, New York 5, U.s. 5, Texas 5, Faa 5, Washington 5, Us 4, Fbi 3, Austin 2, Louisville 2, Michele Bachmann 2, United 2, Pentagon 2, Ronald Reagan 2, Abortionabor 1, Longhorns 1, Phyllis 1, Webster 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 121 (777 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/23/2012